W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [XPath 2.0] XSCH-XPATH-001

From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:49:21 -0500
Message-ID: <403148F1.9080207@mindspring.com>
To: Lisa Martin <lmartin@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org, W3C XML Schema WG <w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org>

Lisa Martin wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,
>This 2-part comment pertains to the Nov. 12 2003 version of XPath 2.0 [1].
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/
>Lisa Martin, on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group
>Section 2.1.1 Static Context
>   [Definition:  In-scope type definitions.    Each named type definition
>   is identified either by a QName (for a named type) or by an
>   implementation-dependent type identifier for an anonymous type.  ... ]
>   a.  The use of "Each named type definition is identified either..."
>implies that anonymous types are considered "named type definitions"  in
>this specification.   Is this correct?   If so, then constructor functions
>are defined for anonymous types - was that intended?   If not, the first
>use of "named" in the definition should be dropped.
Hi Lisa,

I think the placement of parentheses is significant here:

>   [Definition: *In-scope type definitions.* Each named type definition 
> is identified either by a QName (for a *named type*) or by an 
> implementation-dependent 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#dt-implementation-dependent> type 
> identifier (for an *anonymous type*). The in-scope type definitions 
> include the predefined types as described in *2.4.1 Predefined Types* 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#id-predefined-types>. ]

So there are two kinds of types - named types and anonymous types.

>b. WRT implementation-dependent type ids for anonymous types, we note that
>elsewhere (schema context path) QT defines names for anonymous types. Would
>it be appropriate to mandate their use in this case? We also note that
>discussions are ongoing between two WGs about harmonizing schema context
>paths and SCDs.
These are not "names" in our terminology - they are expressions used for 
matching types. Is there a specific request here?

For now, I am classifying this comment as editorial.

Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 17:51:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:17 UTC